June 11, 2003 at 11:35 pm #4965
strongest of the weakParticipantJune 11, 2003 at 11:56 pm #4969June 12, 2003 at 7:51 am #5006
You made some good points (and thus furthered the discussion…ie… YAY! actual discussion around here again… and about IMPORTANT stuff)
Sorry, but I have to chime in here.
What’s wrong with story and effects?
Just because a movie doesn’t have them and therefor gets a low or non rating, doesn’t make it a bad film. It just doesn’t shine in those areas.
Some people, myself included, might want to search for a film based on whether it has a good storyline or not. And in my book, a film based on a one liner still counts as a story- it’s all in the timing and execution.
Effects goes beyond Alum DV (or whatever it’s called)- it can be as generic as that, as mindblowing as some of the stuff done with Photoshop, or as basic as using cotton balls for smoke and blue bricks for water- but if it’s done right, it still qualifies as GREAT effects and I think deserves to be recognized. Imagine you were rating Rise of the Empire and there was no option for Effects or Story.
I say they serve a purpose and need to be considered.
Very well put. We somehow need to make the categories so they can be counted OR NOT. So if they apply, they count, but if they don’t… well they don’t.
And aren’t Cinematography and Animation basically the same thing?
I don’t think they are at all, in fact it is important to make the distinction as a film with good cinematography could have bad animation and vice/versa:
I see Cinematography as the use of the frame or shot to convey the image, feeling point of view etc. The use of widescreen vs full screen, only left to right pans in a whole film, only stills, close ups or long shots, quick cuts, slow transistions etc etc… that is cinematography. The careful selection and use of the camera to present your motion picture.
Animation is how the bricks are literally animated. Is it smooth? At a high or low framerate? Is it exagerrated, realistic, slow mo? Has the animator managed to animate something really complicated and make it look natural (eg the whole point of the chicken dance comp).
In my film the juggler I tried to animate juggling, not do it with spectacular cinematography…
What has to be taken into account is that the moment you introduce specific ratings categories people will (on the whole) make films to maximise their ratings
You say that like it’s a bad thing, Hali
Let’s see- If the last film I made got high ratings in everything but story, wouldn’t that tell me either:
A- I need to work on my storytelling/plot development skills
B- It’s simply not my strongsuit and maybe I should continue to focus on those areas in which I excel.
Either way, it’s valuable feedback and I thought that was the whole purpose of a review.
Yes, it does make for extremely valuable feedback, I guess I started to feel jaded about the whole reviewing process when ppl started emailing me about why they got a bad review. It is very hard to explain that in order to get people to improve you can’t always write glowing reviews. Not always. It is exactly why I couldn’t wait to read you reviews, doug.
They always gave me something to work on for my next film.
I’ve got off track… the reason I say it COULD be a problem is that I know that when I have criteria I am being judged by I aim to meet the criteria first. Sometimes (not always) this means that the added extras fall by the wayside.
Essentially, I’m really worried that specific ratings criteria will stifle the originality of many of the films. Simple as that.
Perhaps what is needed is a way to simply not show catagories that don’t apply to a particular film. If no effects were attempted, then theres no need to include Effects when rating it (Either it simply doesn’t show up or is accompanied by an N/A). If, however, they were attempted and done badly, then that’s something that needs to be acknowledged and provided for in terms of feedback.
Theres my opinion, for what it’s worth.
Yep, agree with this too.
Hali[/quote]June 12, 2003 at 1:39 pm #5026
OK, I guess I misunderstood the whole scenario here.
I was thinking of this in terms of feedback, where you guys are going at it in terms of providing information to people looking for a film to watch.
I guess it should probably be both, but we seem to be on opposing ends of the spectrum.
I also thought that the reviews would be more diverse- I suppose there’s nothing stopping the average joe from putting his/her review on the forum…
Now, to try and answer Josh’s original question-
Since you don’t want an ‘overall’ rating, how about a ‘worth the download’?
That seems to get to the heart of it…June 12, 2003 at 2:21 pm #5028
YolegomanParticipantJune 12, 2003 at 5:21 pm #5039
“shootin bricks” wrote: Now, to try and answer Josh’s original question-
Since you don’t want an ‘overall’ rating, how about a ‘worth the download’?
That seems to get to the heart of it…
The problem with this is, it’s really the same thing as an overall rating. What I’m trying to accomplish is to give feedback to directors on their films, AND help people new to the site figure out which stuff they want to download, AND make it so more films come to the top of search lists when ratings are used as a parameter.
I know, it’s not easy, and possibly impossible. (possibly impossible, :wink ).
The search page I currently have built has a radio group that let’s you decide which type of rating you’d like to order the films in your search by. You have the option of sorting by date, title or length as well, but if you sort by rating, you have to choose one of the rating types.
So if Joe Schmoe shows up at brickfilms and decides maybe he’d like to watch a film or two, he won’t be able to just download “the best film” and ignore the hundreds of other films we have in the directory. He’ll be able to download the film with the best animation, the film with the best sound, etc. Chances are that “the best film” will be at the top of a couple of categories, so it’ll get downloaded a lot anyway. But now a higher number of films will show up at the top of lists, and the number of downloads will be spread a little more evenly across the directory. Of course there are some that will be at the bottom of every list, and they’ll hardly ever get downloaded at all, and that’s fine. We do want the good films to be downloaded, but we want people to realize that there are more good films than the 5 that would be at the top of an overall rating list.
All ratings will show up for each film, regardless of which rating is being used as the sort parameter. So if a film has an awesome special effects score, and everything else is low, people might just skip past it to find a film with higher ratings in other categories. Some people will download it anyway, wanting to see the best special effects the brickfilms directory has to offer.
If a category just doesn’t apply to a film, it would be simple to make it so that a rating of 0 simply doesn’t show up. But as I think about it, it seems like the only category that wouldn’t apply to every film is special effects. And in animation, it’s sort of hard to determine where special effects starts. A clever animator can make a figure fly in a film without any digital help at all. Is that animation or is that special effects? I don’t know. Perhaps special effects should be digital effects. Then again, the best digital effects are used in such a way that you’d never know they were there. Maybe we should just forget about effects altogether, and let them fall into animation and cinematography, wherever they fit best in the rater’s eyes.
Doug renewed my interest in a ‘story’ category. It’s entirely possible for a film to have a well thought out, complete story, and still be lacking in animation, sound, or even fun. Story is especially important for films going longer than a couple of minutes in length. Think how hard it would be to get though Rocketmen vs Robots if it was just a bunch of seemingly random events, albeit good looking ones. Though story is not as vital at shorter lengths, it can still make or break a 3 minute film.June 12, 2003 at 6:51 pm #5061
Technical(the basics, animation, lighting, stuff like that-done well)
Character driven(having memorable characters)
Audio(though maybe this could go with Technical)
New Films(first films, anything good could perhaps be in another category
Too be honest, I dont know how well categorizing them like this might work. It would be a major headache classifying some films. Maybe having these classifications with only a select few films representing that trait could be used as a way to show newer filmers good examples of all that stuff. Then for all the films, divide them into categories like : humor, sci-fi, adventure, and so on. (Bear with me on this, I dont know how one would make this thing, im not a computer genius). Then when each film is given an initial review, you could have certain terms applied for good parts (technical, plot, audio, and so on). So then you have a search form that looks like:
Genre:_______________(humor,sci-fi,adventure and so forth)
Description:_____________(technical, audio,plot, and so forth)
Keep in mind the form would have more than that but thats the gist of it. Each film could have more than one “description” so that a search for “humor” with “technical” and “plot” comes up with any film that is meant to be humorous, is well animated and cleanly presented, and has a good story. The genre is of course defined by the filmer(and the film itself really) but the descriptions are determined when the films are reviewed by Hali and the other 5 reviewers(or how ever many you were going to have). you could then add a numerical rating system or leave it as is(so you wont know a bad film unless you read the review and decide if its worth watching as sometimes numbers can be misleading). but you could have a rating scale like:
40%- overall enjoyability(fun to watch)
5%- file size(lol)
Just my thoughts.June 12, 2003 at 7:18 pm #5065
Shootin BricksParticipantJune 12, 2003 at 7:27 pm #5066
strongest of the weakParticipantJune 12, 2003 at 9:50 pm #5075
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.